I suspected a setup so I declined to take the bait. Barb posted a
lead in and Gregg Hagglund posted a press release about the order
which didn't disclosed anything in the order.

Gregg went all out with the press release. A choice paragraph is:

"The order includes an out-of-the-blue gratuitous personal attack on
Henson, making a vicious assertion totally contrary to facts filed in
evidence and not disputed before Whyte's court. The insult appeared
to me to be in the words usually written by cult lawyer Samuel Rosen.
Metaphorically speaking the judge lifted his solemn robes for the
Criminally Convicted Cult and let their 350-pound lawyer insert his .
. . . text."

Rosen sent a FexEx letter to Whyte Oct. 1, 2002 whining about Gregg
reading Whyte's "sealed" order sent to Gregg's fax machine. Silence
from Whyte. I sent a letter October 3 or 4 to Chief Judge (at that
time) Marilyn Patel. October 9, just in time for the letter to have
reached Judge Patel, Judge Whyte posthaste unsealed the order, blaming
the sealing on his clerk. (I know it is standard, but I think blaming
what was really a criminal act on a subordinate, especially a female
subordinate, is low life behavior, like LRH sending his wife to jail
in his place.)

I had not thought about this episode for years, because there wasn't
anything I could do about it except write a scathing post about how
unlikely it was that Judge Whyte could have signed an order with
"sealed" all over it by "accident."

"It's a good bet that sealing this order was done with malice by Judge
Whyte in a conspiracy with Rosen . . . "

However . . . . Judge Weissbrodt has given me extraordinary powers to
attempt to show that the courts were used to generate fraudulent
rulings--which landed in the bankruptcy court. Getting an honest
reply depends on Judge Whyte's clerk being fed up with being blamed
for an attempt by Judge Whyte to entrap someone into a crime.

TO:
Jackie Lynn Garcia

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1:

Judge Whyte blamed sealing an order in No. C-96-20271 RMW on a clerk:

"ORDER UNSEALING ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A FINDING OF CONTEMPT

[Re Docket No. 581]

"As the result of a misunderstanding between the undersigned and his
clerk, the Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Plaintiffs
Motion for a Finding of Contempt filed September 26, 2002 was
inadvertently filed under seal. There is nothing confidential about
the order and the court hereby lifts the "Under Seal" designation. A
copy of the September 26, 2002 Order without its attachment and with
the "under seal" designation removed is attached to this order."

Were you the clerk to which this statement of Judge Whyte applies?

Yes___ No___

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 2:

If the answer to SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1 is No, please give the
name of the person to whom Judge Whyte refers.

_______________________________________________

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 3:

If the answer to SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 1 is yes, was there
actually a misunderstanding between yourself and Judge Whyte that
caused of the sealing of the September 26 order in error?

Yes___ No___

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4:

Have you observed anything in this case that would indicate improper
influence?

Yes___ No___

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 5:

If the answer to SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 4 is yes, list the
occurrences and provide details.

>
> "Keith Henson" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
> [email protected]
>>
>> Nearly three years ago Judge Whyte sealed an order when the cult went
>> after me for asking for a copy of NOTs 56 (which I wrote) and posting
>> a pointer to a fair use version of NOTs 34.
>>
>> It was my contention at the time that Judge Whyte had sent me a sealed
>> order with the intent to entrap me into posting it so the cult could
>> go after me for violating an order of Judge Whyte's court.
>>
> This looks serious enough indeed to try to obtain a reply; but do you
> think the
> Justice system will allow you to defend yourself from a foreign location
> , since you're "under arrest" because of all this?
>
> I don't remember: Whyte was not an appeal judge, os was he? If the appeal
> is'nt done, would an appeal suspend momentarily the execution of this
> absurd sentence to 200 days?

Whyte was on the ninth circuit. Appeals courts would be
above Whyte. Then the supreme court.

> Besides, since the last relatively evident corruption activity by
> scientology-scientologists with an *elected* official (like judges are in
> USA) was discovered three days ago in NY, did you try to ask for
> corruption research from scientology to the court? [well, this can be
> awfully dangerous and difficult to prove]

In certain cases, in the US federal courts can try one
on conspiracy charges. Its often done in drug cases.
One may not be able to find top dope dealers with dope on hand
to try them. But wiretaps and other evidence may develop
evidence that they were attempting to deal dope, having others
do the actual dealing. One can earn stiff prison terms
for that, even if one fails to actually deal dope.
Say the feds intercept shipments.

If this all develops enough evidence there was a conspiracy, how
ever ad hoc, to deny Henson a fair trial, and rail road him, if a fedreal
prosecuter could be found who wanted to deal with this, conspiracy
charges could be used. All you have to show is that there was
evidence of conspiracy. Even if it failed.

Sometimes what is done in dope dealer cases is, pick off a few lower
level guys, and in return for a deal, 2 years on lessor charges rather than
10 on greater, turn them into willing witnesses againts the top guys.
Some years ago, I headed a long radio interview on this subject by an
ex-drug agency investigator who had been one of the US's most successful
agents. he explained how all this wored and said bluntly, far more people
were in prison on conspiracy than drug charges. Its so much easier to work
this way it is routine now. Only the mules caught with 10 kilos in a
trunk, (usually fingered by an informant) go to prison for drug possession.

So, If I was Henson, I would keep that in mind, and aim at proving
conspiracy. Nor does it have to be an overall, overarching conspiracy.

The conspiracy of Scientology lawyers with police need not be
the one and same as the conspiracy of lawyers to play dirty tricks on a
court with ringers brought in as jurors.

All he has to do is prove that at least two people at some point conspired
to do at least one thing illegal with overt reason to deny him his rights.

You can have overlapping but seperate conspiracies. Again dope dealers use
compartmentalization. Somebody setting up a mule to run 10 kilos
of cocaine into LA will not know how a dealer is conspiring to import
cocaine from Columbia. Dope dealers are usually involved with overlapping
but seperate conspiracies.

So a laywer for CoS setting up a trick with a compliant law enforcement
agent will not know what another team of CoS lawyers is doing in a court
to deny Henson his rights, either through trickery or conspiracy with an
actual court personel.

If a CoS lawyer sets up a stunt to pressure the court to send a motiuon
to late for Henso to reply and then pressures the court to punish Henson
for failure to reply when he could have had no chance to do so,
that is beyond the act itself, conspiracy. If a person in the court who
should have known better, that this was unfair and against court rules,
and allowed this to happen anyway, he is also part of the conspiracy,
because he did so. With conspiracy, you do not have to prove intent.
Just an act. Even a if its a judge.

What matters is if the conspiracy stopped with the lawyers who merely
tricked a court employee, or whether that court employee knew an action
asked by a CoS lawyer was wrong or not. If it was wrong and Henson
complained and they did it anyway, and the CoS can be shown to be the
instigator of an act, it is conspiracy.

> And finally, were there some parts of the court files to which you don't
> have access as a pro-se defender? (Asking, because indeed, I've been
> subjected to
> such facts before at least one court here, the court being in no case
> "guilty" of hiding the docs, but the scientology linked attorney had
> viciously manoeuvered with scam cultists to avoid any possibility for me
> to consult documents before my pleading pro-se. They knew I would have
> been able to plead their invalidity.)

In US courts, judges have a lot of discretion about these things.
As we have seen. Which is why we see this happening as it is.
Scientology has long been well noted as avoiding discovery for years even
with judges demanding compliance.

And as we saw with Ward over demands in discovery for records
from the cult on posts he had made they might have, we see judges
sometimes rolling over and playing dead even in face of basic court
rules.

With the level of corruption we see here in LA, its going to be hard.

There are tough US laws against conspiracies to deny a person
their rights. The trouble is getting a federal prosecuter interested in
actually following up. Federal government pressure to use such laws
is spotty, but today's big goblin is terrorism. In the past it was drugs.

Moxon, one of the guys at the top who escaped charges in the
Snow White cases has a history of being involved is nsuch conspiracies
against the US government and private citizens.
That might be the hook that interests a federal prosecutor.

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,
Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of
any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or
laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised
the same;
or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured?
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both;
and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this
section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap,
aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual
abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may
be sentenced to death.